'I don't think Matthew is a fan': Glenn responds to writer bashing his newest bestseller

Glenn thanked his audience on radio Friday for helping spread the word about something nobody in Washington seems to understand or care about — the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

Islam_final_hirez

In his newest book, It IS About Islam, which has topped The New York Times bestseller list for the past three weeks, Glenn drew on quotes from the Koran and the hadith, as well as from leaders of ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to expose the true origins of Islamic extremism.

"You need to know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist," Glenn said.

He went on.

"As I was thinking about this the other day, and I got the call that we were number one on The New York Times list again, I thought to myself, 'Hmm, isn't it weird that the leftists in America is so quiet on a book that's number one?'"

That was before Glenn found a Salon article written by Matthew Pulver, entitled "Glenn Beck’s terrifying new book: 300 pages of Islamophobia dressed up as scholarship."

"When I finished with the article, I started to realize, 'I don't think Matthew is a fan,'" Glenn said.

Glenn proceeded to set the record straight on every false claim brought up in Pulver's article.

Listen to the entertaining radio segment here, or read the full transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I want to thank you for making -- I think this is the third week in a row that we're number one for It Is About Islam.

This is the exposing of the truth about ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, and the caliphate, and it is important for you to understand it because nobody in Washington seems to understand it or seems to care. And there is a difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. And you need to know the difference between Muslim and Islamist.

And as I was thinking about this the other day, and I got the call that we were number one on the New York Times list again. I thought to myself, "Hmm, isn't it weird that the leftists in America is so quiet on a book that's number one?"

It kind of makes me and my security detail a little nervous. Why are they so quiet about this? Usually I -- I mean, they should have tried to put me out of business by now. Called me all kinds of horrible names.

PAT: Death threats. All kinds of fun things.

GLENN: All kinds of fun things. But then I found Matthew Pulver's gem, if I can call it -- truly wonderful. Just terrific.

PAT: It's a special article.

GLENN: It's a special article. Terrific.

STU: Is it phenomenal?

GLENN: Yeah, it is phenomenal. And this comes from Salon. And the headline is Glenn Beck's terrifying new book. Three hundred pages of Islamophobia dressed up as scholarship.

Now, it's interesting that he used Islamophobia Because I show you the root of the word "Islamophobia" in the book, where it came from, who started it, why they're doing it.

And he executes it perfectly. If he'd read the book, he would see exactly how he fits right perfectly into the game. But when I finished with the article, I -- I started to realize, "I don't think Matthew is a fan."

(laughter)

GLENN: Really.

PAT: I got that impression too.

GLENN: Did you read the article too?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Weird. And it starts out subtle. It starts out with: Glenn Beck would like to tell you about Islam. Sure, he's a walking conspiracy generator who has been wrong, nearly every time he parts his lips. Which is a lot -- I mean, that seems strong.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But he gives me a couple of examples. He writes: Wrong about Obama's SS-like civilian national security force, which is interesting that he put civilian national security force in quotations because it's such a crazy quote. You've got to quote -- you have to put that quote in there because --

PAT: Then you know --

GLENN: Civilian -- how crazy.

PAT: He was actually quoting you.

GLENN: No. Actually, no. He was actually quoting, not me, but Barack Obama.

OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

GLENN: Okay. So never had an explanation on that. And I have mused a few times on, "What the hell is that?"

Now we can argue all day over what he was talking about. But I can't be wrong about Obama's civilian national security force because he's the one who said they were going to build it. So I don't know what it is. But he continues and he says: Beck was wrong about Obama's FEMA camps, which is really an interesting one. We heard the rumors about the FEMA camps. And then we wanted to find out if there was anything about the FEMA camps. Is there any truth to that rumor at all? Have my staff, you know, go and do the work. Get on TV and say, hey, I just want to tell you, at 5 o'clock today, we're going to tell you the truth about FEMA camps. Let me tell you about FEMA camps. There's no FEMA camps. They don't exist.

STU: You didn't by any chance use your own resources and send cameramen to the actual location to show that --

GLENN: Of course not.

STU: You didn't invite someone from popular mechanics to disprove --

GLENN: No. To disprove the existence of -- yeah, that's exactly what I did.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So then he says: Beck was wrong about Obama using the Postal Service as an evil spy network.

STU: I don't remember that show.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't remember that one. It's hard to say that I was wrong about something that I never even heard of, let alone promoted. But maybe I said it. I mean, I've said a million things times 1,000 over the last few years. The Postal Service being used as an evil spy network seems really stupid because, I mean, you know, you've got all the phone companies being used as a spy network. So why -- why would you go to the Postal Service? But, you know, I don't know what the story was. It might have made me say something like that.

PAT: You didn't.

GLENN: Are you sure?

PAT: Yeah. I've never --

GLENN: Well, anyway, he got the phone companies using as a spy network. I know that I've said under George W. Bush, I didn't like the fact that he was calling for people to spy on their neighbors and call us if you see something, call DHS. But hang on just a second. He actually said that, and Barack Obama tried to institute it through the White House. If your neighbor says something, you let us know at whitehouse.gov. So Post Office, I don't remember. But the other stuff was actually being done or was seriously debated. So if he's okay with the NSA monitoring of all email and phone conversations and saving up of all of that information. Okay.

Then he wraps up his slanderous -- sorry, what did I say? Then he wraps up his slanderous nonsensical accusations with this, quote: And the seemingly countless, breathless alarm warnings over the years.

The breathless alarm warnings over the years.

Now, he doesn't print this out. But I'm going to give you some of these warnings that's so breathless and nonsensical that I don't even know why I would say -- for instance, in 1999 when I said, quote, there would be blood and bodies in the streets of New York if we don't pay attention to Osama bin Laden. He means what he says. End quote.

In 2006, '7, and '8, when I warned people to get their money out of the stock market because there was a housing crash that was coming and it would be bad.

The breathless, alarmist warnings like encouraging the uprising in Egypt would lead to a destabilizing of Europe and the Middle East. And the destabilization would spread throughout the Middle East, and a caliphate would be established and then it would spread to Europe and destabilize all of Europe.

Or probably I was out of breath when I warned that Greece was about to collapse. That Germany wouldn't be willing to continue to lend Greece the money. That was crazy. Or my breathless warnings when I said Nazis will come back and you will find them in Greece, and you will find them, Nazis and fascists all over Europe. I was out of breath when I said that because that was a long sentence. Or the breathless alarmist when I said the fed would print money and then they would print more money. And then they wouldn't be able to stop printing more money. Or when I said that Russia would lead the world into a plan to dedollarize the rest of the world. And that China would stop buying our debt. That was breathless and alarmist. Because I remember them telling us, that China needs us. They will never do that. Or when I said that progressives would become so bold that they would admit finally, yeah, you know what, we are socialists because this capitalist thing doesn't work. So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with being a socialist.

Now, that warning is crazy too because isn't an avowed socialist leading the party in at least two primary states right now? Just wanted to point that out.

So I don't know Matthew Pulver at all, but he apparently has such blind rage, that he obviously didn't bother checking into a single fact. And the people at Salon are so sloppy and such hacks, that it doesn't -- they don't lose any sleep at night because that's what they do for a living. The hatred is so complete that this author finds himself enraged with the phrase "all lives matter." Now, I want you to think about that. All lives matter enrages you. He writes, all lives matter concludes the book as if Christian nationalism throughout needed a final splash of racism.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Could I ask, when did the proclamation that all lives matter become racist? Because all, at least in my book, includes white, black, brown, yellow, red. All includes all. If I tell my kids, pick up all of your toys, if they only pick a few of their toys, I'm kind of pissed off at them. And I ask them, do you understand that I just said, pick up all of your toys? All means all. But maybe -- maybe it would have had a point if I concluded in my book that some lives matter or a few lives matter. Or only American lives matter. But I said all lives matter.

Then he goes into this. In a nice symmetry between the final white reactionary note recalls the scene on which the book opens. The Thomas Jefferson prophetically consulting the Koran before he became, quote, the first American president to go to war with Islamic radicals, end quote.

In the 1801 war with North American Barbary States, essentially the United States' first foreign war, Beck shocks his reader with a revelation by the Barbary ambassador in 1786 to Jefferson and his eventual presidential predecessor John Adams. The Islamic Barbary armies used Koranic scripture to permit the enslavement of a portion of enemies captured in battle.

Enslaving Americans, Africans doing that? But that's the wrong way around. And relying on pro-slavery scripture that isn't the Bible? Beck is so eager to construct a narrative in which Islamic hordes have always pounded the innocent American gates. Casually he overlooks the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, of which Jefferson was no small beneficiary in the biblical means of its defense.

Now, Matthew, I have to tell you, I didn't -- what is it, casually overlook the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. It's just, this isn't a book about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and its horrors. If you want a book about that, one that's been on the market for a long time is Roots. Great story. Not exactly true. It didn't actually happen to Alex Haley's family.

PAT: Still riveting.

GLENN: Still riveting and still basically true

STU: Why would you think Salon needed it to be true?

GLENN: You're right. You're right.

So he doesn't dispute the facts. He doesn't allege that I'm wrong about going to war in 1801 against Muslim pirates. He just thinks that I should talk about something else.

Throughout the rest of the article, Pulver vents obvious disdain and lack of understanding for both me, Christianity, and the Bible. And did I mention his disdain for me? And he doesn't cite a single fact that's inaccurate. This writer could apparently get past the fact that it is about Islam, rather than just some person or some group. But, see, that's the whole point of the book. It's not a nice -- I hate to boil it down to something so simple. It is about Islam, as we painstakingly documented in the book. The persons and the group get their ideology from the Koran and the Hadith, which we checked and rechecked with leading scholars and imams in the Middle East to verify that every word we said was true. Which is why I said and stand by, it is about Islam. An important book. One that you will not find anywhere else. But we're done mincing words. The truth has to be told. Available in bookstores everywhere. It Is About Islam.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.